DOCSLIB.ORG

The Right to Privacy in India

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Right to Privacy in India Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India Stakeholder Report Universal Periodic Review 27th Session – India The Right to Privacy in India Submitted by Centre for Internet and Society India and Privacy International October 2016 1 Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India Submitted by Centre for Internet and Society India and Privacy International October 2016 Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India Introduction 1. This stakeholder report is a submission by Centre for Internet and Society India (CIS India) and Privacy International (PI). CIS is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Through its diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse and practices around internet, technology and society in India, and elsewhere. PI is a human rights organisation that works to advance and promote the right to privacy and fight surveillance around the world. 2. CIS and PI wish to bring concerns about the protection and promotion of the right to privacy in India before the Human Rights Council for consideration in India’s upcoming review. The right to privacy 3. Privacy is a fundamental human right, enshrined in numerous international human rights instruments.1 It is central to the protection of human dignity and forms the basis of any democratic society. It also supports and reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression, information and association. 4. Activities that restrict the right to privacy, such as surveillance and censorship, can only be justified when they are prescribed by law, necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and proportionate to the aim pursued.2 5. As innovations in information technology have enabled previously unimagined forms of collecting, storing and sharing personal data, the right to privacy has evolved to encapsulate State obligations related to the protection of personal data.3 A number of international instruments enshrine data protection principles,4 and many domestic legislatures have incorporated such principles into national law.5 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers Article 14, UN Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Free Expression and Access to Information, Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality. 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 29; General Comment No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999; See also Martin Scheinin, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,” 2009, A/ HRC/17/34. 3 Human Rights Committee general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation (art. 17) See: A/HRC/WG.6/13/MAR/3, para. 37 4 See the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (No. 108), 1981; the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Data Flows of Personal Data (1980); and the Guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files (General Assembly resolution 45/95 and E/CN.4/1990/72) 5 As of December 2013, 101 countries had enacted data protection legislation. See: David Banisar, National Comprehensive Data Protection/Privacy Laws and Bills 2014 Map (January 28, 2014). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1951416 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1951416 3 Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India 6. Privacy also has implication for the freedom of opinion and expression. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression emphasises that the “right to privacy is often understood as an essential requirement for the realization of the right to freedom of expression. Undue interference with individual’s privacy can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas.”6 Follow up to the previous UPR 7. There was no mention of the right to privacy within the context of communication surveillance and data protection in the National Report submitted by India. 8. The right to privacy was not raised as an issue of concern either by UN Members States nor external stakeholders. Domestic laws related to privacy 9. The Constitution of India does not specifically guarantee a right to privacy, however through various judgements over the years the Courts of the country have interpreted the other rights in the Constitution to be giving rise to a (limited) right to privacy – primarily through Article 21 – the right to life and liberty. In 2015, this interpretation was challenged and referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court (the highest Court in the country) in the writ petition Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India and Others, the case is currently pending in the Supreme Court. 10. The constitutional right to privacy in India is subject to a number of restrictions. These restrictions have been culled out through the interpretation of various provisions and judgements of the Supreme Court of India: • The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law which procedure would have to be just, fair and reasonable (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India); • Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; (Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950) • The right to privacy can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior (Gobind v. State of M.P.); 6 A/HRC/23/40 4 Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India • The right to privacy can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served (Gobind v. State of M.P.); • The protection available under the right to privacy may not be available to a person who voluntarily thrusts her/himself into controversy (R. Rajagopal v. Union of India). • Like most fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy has been mostly interpreted as a vertical right applicable only against the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution, and not against private citizens. (Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society v District Registrar) 11. India does not have a comprehensive privacy legislation and limited data protection standards can be found under section 43A and associated Rules in the Information Technology Act 2000. International obligations 12. India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’). Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation”. The Human Rights Committee has noted that states party to the ICCPR have a positive obligation to “adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the prohibition against such interferences and attacks as well as to the protection of this right [privacy].”7 Areas of concern I. Communications surveillance Broad and fragmented standards for surveillance 13. Communication surveillance in India is primarily regulated by two different statutes, the Telegraph Act, 1885 (“Telegraph Act”) (which deals with interception of calls) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) (which deals with interception of electronic data). 14. Before 1996, the state authorities relied upon the provisions of the Telegraph Act to carry out interception of phone calls. The Act allows any authorized public official to intercept communications on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety.8 Communications can be intercepted under the Telegraph Act during “public emergencies” or 7 General Comment No. 16 (1988), para. 1 8 Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 5 Stateholder Report Universal Periodic 27th Session: The Right to Privacy in India in the interest of “public safety” provided that such interception is in the interests of certain other grounds, namely, the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order and for preventing the incitement of offences. Such broad and vague justifications for surveillance have become a feature of many jurisdictions. The concept of national integrity or security are usually defined very broadly and are vulnerable to misuse as a means to target certain kinds of actors and propagate unnecessary secrecy around law enforcement measures, thus, having an adverse impact on transparency and accountability.9 15. However, in 1996 the Supreme Court noticed the lack of procedural safeguards in the provisions of the Telegraph Act and laid down certain guidelines for interceptions. These guidelines formed the basis of the Rules defining the procedures of interception that were codified by introducing Rule 419A in the Telegraph Rules in 2007.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anonymity and Encryption in Digital Communications, February 2015
    Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression – anonymity and encryption in digital communications, February 201 1! Introduction Privacy International submits this information for the Special Rapporteur's report on the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Anonymity and the use of encryption in digital communications engage both the right to freedom of expression and right to privacy very closely: anonymity and encryption protects privacy, and ithout effective protection of the right to privacy, the right of individuals to communicate anonymously and ithout fear of their communications being unla fully detected cannot be guaranteed. As noted by the previous mandate holder, !rank #aRue, $the right to privacy is essential for individuals to express themselves freely. Indeed, throughout history, people%s illingness to engage in debate on controversial sub&ects in the public sphere has al ays been linked to possibilities for doing so anonymously.'( Individuals' right to privacy extends to their digital communications.) As much as they offer ne opportunities to freely communicate, the proliferation of digital communications have signi*cantly increased the capacity of states, companies and other non+state actors to interfere ith individual's privacy and free expression. Such interference ranges from mass surveillance of communications by state intelligence agencies, to systematic collection and storage of private information by internet and telecommunication companies, to cybercrime. Anonymity and encryption are essential tools available to individuals to mitigate or avert interferences ith their rights to privacy and free expression. In this ay, they are means of individuals exercising to the fullest degree their rights hen engaging in digital communications.
    [Show full text]
  • Anonymity in a Time of Surveillance
    LESSONS LEARNED TOO WELL: ANONYMITY IN A TIME OF SURVEILLANCE A. Michael Froomkin* It is no longer reasonable to assume that electronic communications can be kept private from governments or private-sector actors. In theory, encryption can protect the content of such communications, and anonymity can protect the communicator’s identity. But online anonymity—one of the two most important tools that protect online communicative freedom—is under practical and legal attack all over the world. Choke-point regulation, online identification requirements, and data-retention regulations combine to make anonymity very difficult as a practical matter and, in many countries, illegal. Moreover, key internet intermediaries further stifle anonymity by requiring users to disclose their real names. This Article traces the global development of technologies and regulations hostile to online anonymity, beginning with the early days of the Internet. Offering normative and pragmatic arguments for why communicative anonymity is important, this Article argues that anonymity is the bedrock of online freedom, and it must be preserved. U.S. anti-anonymity policies not only enable repressive policies abroad but also place at risk the safety of anonymous communications that Americans may someday need. This Article, in addition to providing suggestions on how to save electronic anonymity, calls for proponents of anti- anonymity policies to provide stronger justifications for such policies and to consider alternatives less likely to destroy individual liberties. In
    [Show full text]
  • No. 16-3588 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for THE
    Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 No. 16-3588 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee v. GABRIEL WERDENE, Appellant ______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ______________________ BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL OF THE DECISION BELOW ______________________ Of counsel: Caroline Wilson Palow* Lisa A. Mathewson Scarlet Kim* The Law Offices of PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Lisa A. Mathewson, LLC 62 Britton Street 123 South Broad Street, Suite 810 London EC1M 5UY Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: +44 (0) 20 3422 4321 Phone: (215) 399-9592 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae, *Counsel not admitted to Third Circuit Bar Privacy International Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Local Appellate Rule 26.1.1, amicus curiae Privacy International certifies that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case: 16-3588 Document: 003112605572 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/26/2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aiding Surveillance an Exploration of How Development and Humanitarian Aid Initiatives Are Enabling Surveillance in Developing Countries
    Privacy International Aiding Surveillance An exploration of how development and humanitarian aid initiatives are enabling surveillance in developing countries Gus Hosein and Carly Nyst 01 October 2013 www.privacyinternational.org Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Contents Executive Summary 04 Section 1 Introduction 05 Section 2 Methodology 15 Section 3 Management Information Systems 17 and electronic transfers Section 4 Digital identity registration and biometrics 28 Section 5 Mobile phones and data 42 Section 6 Border surveillance and security 50 Section 7 Development at the expense of human rights? 56 The case for caution Endnotes 59 03/80 Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Executive Summary Information technology transfer is increasingly a crucial element of development and humanitarian aid initiatives. Social protection programmes are incorporating digitised Management Information Systems and electronic transfers, registration and electoral systems are deploying biometric technologies, the proliferation of mobile phones is facilitating access to increased amounts of data, and technologies are being transferred to support security and rule of law efforts. Many of these programmes and technologies involve the surveillance of individuals, groups, and entire populations. The collection and use of personal information in these development and aid initiatives is without precedent, and subject to few legal safeguards. In this report we show that as development and humanitarian donors and agencies rush to adopt new technologies that facilitate surveillance, they may be creating and supporting systems that pose serious threats to individuals’ human rights, particularly their right to privacy. 04/80 Section 1 Aiding Surveillance — Privacy International Introduction 1.0 It is hard to imagine a current public policy arena that does not incorporate new technologies in some way, whether in the planning, development, deployment, or evaluation phases.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Services De Renseignement Et De Sécurité D'asie Du
    Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement 1 LES SERVICES DE RENSEIGNEMENT ET DE SÉCURITÉ D’ASIE DU SUD Général Alain LAMBALLE Rapport de recherche #20 Juillet 2017 2 PRÉSENTATION DE L’AUTEUR Le général de brigade (cadre de réserve) Alain Lamballe, Il participe à de nombreux colloques et est régulièrement spécialiste reconnu de l’Asie du Sud, a effectué l’essentiel de sollicité pour des conférences, en France et à l’étranger. sa carrière militaire dans le renseignement et les relations Il se déplace régulièrement dans tous les pays d’Asie du Sud. internationales. Il a été directeur de séminaire sur l’Asie du Sud au Collège Interarmées de Défense/École de guerre et chargé de cours Le général Lamballe est issu de l’académie militaire de St-Cyr sur l’Asie du Sud à l’École des Hautes Études Politiques, et titulaire d’un doctorat de 3e cycle en sociologie politique à l’École des Hautes Études Internationales et à l’École (École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris). Supérieure de Journalisme. Il est intervenu sur cette région Il est diplômé de l’Institut National des Langues et Civilisations du monde au Centre d’Études Diplomatiques et Stratégiques. Orientales (INALCO) en hindi, ourdou et hongrois, du Centre Il a participé à des émissions radio et télévision. Il a présidé des Hautes Études sur l’Afrique et l’Asie Modernes (CHEAM), l’association des auditeurs moyen-orientaux et asiatiques de de l’université de Delhi (en hindi). l’Institut des Hautes Études de Défense Nationale. Il possède également des diplômes militaires de langues Il contribue à la rédaction sur support électronique d’Asie21, étrangères (anglais, italien, allemand, hindi).
    [Show full text]
  • Privacy International, Human and Digital Rights Organizations, and International Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
    No. 17-2 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States IN THE MdATTER OF A WARRANT TO SEARCH A CERTAIN EMAIL ACCOUNT CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, —v.— MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BRIEF OF PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL, HUMAN AND DIGITAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT LAUREN GALLO WHITE BRIAN M. WILLEN RYAN T. O’HOLLAREN Counsel of Record WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH BASTIAAN G. SUURMOND & ROSATI, P.C. WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH One Market Plaza Spear Tower, & ROSATI, P.C. Suite 3300 1301 Avenue of the Americas, San Francisco, California 94105 40th Floor (415) 947-2000 New York, New York 10019 [email protected] (212) 999-5800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae (Counsel continued on inside cover) CAROLINE WILSON PALOW SCARLET KIM PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL 62 Britton Street London, EC1M 5UY United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether construing the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) to authorize the seizure of data stored outside the United States would conflict with foreign data-protection laws, including those of Ireland and the European Union, and whether these conflicts should be avoided by applying established canons of construction, including presumptions against extra- territoriality and in favor of international comity, which direct U.S. courts to construe statutes as applying only domestically and consistently with foreign laws, absent clear Congressional intent. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE QUESTION PRESENTED ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Gender Perspectives on Privacy’
    September 2018 Privacy International’s submission on the consultation ‘Gender perspectives on privacy’ In response to the consultation on ‘Gender perspectives on Privacy’ by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, Privacy International submit the following observations. The organisation is publishing in October 2018 a report on the topic, which it will share with the Rapporteur as soon as it is released. 1. What gender issues arise in the digital era in the Thematic Action Streams (Privacy and Personality; Security and Surveillance; Big Data and Open Data; Health Data, and the Use of Personal Data by Corporations)? What challenges need to be addressed and what positives can be promoted more widely? As a necessary condition to define boundaries, protect human dignity and enable autonomy, the right to privacy can be particularly important for women and queer persons, influencing most aspect of their lives, preventing them from being victims of discrimination, unwanted exposure, unlawful surveillance, and harassment, among other harms. A gender perspective is also necessary to address power imbalances in the exercise of the right to privacy, making sure that it does not become an excuse from providing proper redress when this right is affected. Within that context, we would like to draw your attention to particular issues and challenges that we believe should be addressed. Previous research on the topic, as well as our on-going research, document a reality in which traditional systems of oppression that are based on gender discrimination can find new manifestations in the information age. Of particular concern to us is the issue of online gender-based violence.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017.10.20 PI Amicus Brief
    Case: 17-30117, 10/20/2017, ID: 10624905, DktEntry: 9, Page 1 of 35 No. 17-30117 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID TIPPENS, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma District Court BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL Scarlet Kim Counsel for Amicus Curiae Privacy International 62 Britton Street London EC1M 5UY United Kingdom +44 (0) 20 3422 4321 Case: 17-30117, 10/20/2017, ID: 10624905, DktEntry: 9, Page 2 of 35 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 29(a)(4)(A), amicus curiae Privacy International certifies that it does not have a parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case: 17-30117, 10/20/2017, ID: 10624905, DktEntry: 9, Page 3 of 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST ................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 4 I. The “Network Investigative Technique.” ......................................................... 4 A. The NIT uses an “exploit” and a “payload.” .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Data Protection 2017
    ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Data Protection 2017 4th Edition A practical cross-border insight into data protection law Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from: Affärsadvokaterna i Sverige AB Hunton & Williams Bae, Kim & Lee LLC Koushos Korfiotis Papacharalambous LLC Bagus Enrico & Partners Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law Creel, García-Cuéllar, Aiza y Enríquez, S.C. LPS L@w Cuatrecasas Matheson Dittmar & Indrenius Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Drew & Napier LLC Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Ecija Abogados Pachiu & Associates ErsoyBilgehan Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law Ltd. Eversheds Sutherland Portolano Cavallo GANADO Advocates Gilbert + Tobin Rato, Ling, Lei & Cortés Lawyers GRATA International Rossi Asociados Hacohen & Co. Subramaniam & Associates (SNA) Herbst Kinsky Rechtsanwälte GmbH Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Data Protection 2017 General Chapter: 1 All Change for Data Protection: The European Data Protection Regulation – Bridget Treacy & Anita Bapat, Hunton & Williams 1 Country Question and Answer Chapters: Contributing Editors 2 Australia Gilbert + Tobin: Melissa Fai & Alex Borowsky 7 Anita Bapat and Aaron P. Simpson, Hunton & Williams 3 Austria Herbst Kinsky Rechtsanwälte GmbH: Dr. Sonja Hebenstreit & Dr. Isabel Funk-Leisch 23 Sales Director Florjan Osmani 4 Belgium Hunton & Williams: Wim Nauwelaerts & David Dumont 34 Account Director 5 Canada Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP: Adam Kardash & Brandon Kerstens 43 Oliver Smith 6 Chile Rossi Asociados: Claudia Rossi
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy in Kenya 35 UPR
    Stakeholder Report Universal Periodic Review 35th Session - Kenya The Right to Privacy in Kenya Submitted by the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders-Kenya, KELIN, Paradigm Initiative, Privacy International July 2019 INTRODUCTION 1. This stakeholder report is a submission by Privacy International (PI), the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders Kenya (NCHRD-K), The Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS (KELIN), and Paradigm Initiative. PI is non-profit, non-governmental organisation that promotes and defends privacy as a human right that supports and enables other human rights and fundamental freedoms; monitors and reports on surveillance methods and tactics employed against people and groups; and advocates for strong national, regional and international laws to protect people and safeguard against data exploitation and abuse. NCHRD-K is a non-governmental organisation that promotes the safety and protection of human rights defenders (HRDs)1 in Kenya. NCHRD-K was established to strengthen the work of HRDs2 in Kenya by reducing their vulnerability to the risk of persecution and by enhancing their capacity to effectively defend human rights through capacity building, advocacy and protection. KELIN is an independent Kenyan Civil Society Organization working to protect and promote health related human rights in Kenya by advocating for integration of human rights principles in laws, policies and administrative frameworks; facilitating access to justice in respect to violations of health-related rights; training professionals and communities on rights-based approaches and initiating and participating in strategic partnerships to realize the right to health nationally, regionally and globally. Paradigm Initiative (PI) is a non- profit social enterprise that builds ICT-enabled support systems for young people and advocates digital rights, in order to improve livelihoods.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Talk About the Right to Privacy at the Un
    HOW TO TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AT THE UN A Brief Guide 2 How To Talk About the Right to Privacy at the UN: A Brief Guide HOW TO TALK ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AT THE UN A Brief Guide March 2017 www.privacyinternational.org 2/16 3 How To Talk About the Right to Privacy at the UN: A Brief Guide Table of Contents Introduction 5 The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy 6 How NGOs can interact with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy Other UN Special Rapporteurs 8 How NGOs can interact with other UN Special Rapporteurs Human Rights Committee 11 How NGOs can interact with the Human Rights Committee Universal Periodic Review 14 How NGOs can interact with the Universal Periodic Review 3/16 4 How To Talk About the Right to Privacy at the UN: A Brief Guide Introduction: The UN and the Right to Privacy The right to privacy is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17). UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS / ARTICLE 12 “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS / ARTICLE 17 “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.” “2.
    [Show full text]
  • Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul Faculdade De Ciências Econômicas Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais
    UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS ECONÔMICAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS INTERNACIONAIS GUSTAVO MÖLLER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS AS NETWORKS: BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA, AND SOUTH AFRICA Porto Alegre 2015 GUSTAVO MÖLLER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS AS NETWORKS: BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA, AND SOUTH AFRICA Dissertação submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais da Faculdade de Ciências Econômicas da UFRGS, como requisito parcial para obtenção do título de Mestre em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais. Orientador: Dr. Marco Aurélio Chaves Cepik Porto Alegre 2015 GUSTAVO MÖLLER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS AS NETWORKS: BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA, AND SOUTH AFRICA Dissertação submetida ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais da Faculdade de Ciências Econômicas da UFRGS, como requisito parcial para obtenção do título de Mestre em Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais. Aprovada em: Porto Alegre, 30 de setembro de 2015. BANCA EXAMINADORA: Prof. Dr. Marco Aurélio Chaves Cepik – Orientador UFRGS Prof. Dr. Carlos Hoppen UFRGS Prof. Dr. Paulo Sergio Peres UFRGS Prof. Dr. Eduardo Xavier Ferreira Migon ECEME AGRADECIMENTOS Aos meus pais, Rejane e Luís, por acreditarem em minha capacidade de chegar onde estou, apesar dos muitos contratempos. , Juliana, que apesar de ausente fisicamente, esteve presente. Ao restante da , e ao meu primo e irmão, Adriano. Ao meu orientador, Prof. Marco Cepik, por ter me proporcionado diversas oportunidades ao longo desses quase seis anos e ter sempre incentivado e apoiado todas minhas iniciativas profissionais e pessoais. Aos professores doutores e grandes pesquisadores Russel Swenson e Peter Gill, por gentilmente revisarem versões preliminares do artigo. A todos os colegas Cegovianos, atuais e aposentados.
    [Show full text]